Religion and public policy

Islam, Egypt and political theory

Échec mate

ON the face of things, this week's events in Egypt have validated a theory about Islam and society that seemed contrarian when it was first floated. In 1992 a French analyst of the Muslim world, Olivier Roy, published a book entitled "L'échec de l'Islam politique"—translated into English three years later as "The Failure of Political Islam".

Back then, political Islam—the idea that Islam could provide a platform for taking and exercising power in modern times—seemed to be doing quite well. The Islamic masters of Iran, having withstood a long war with Iraq, were looking for new places to extend their influence, including the former Soviet republics to their north. In Algeria, an Islamist party had won a clear electoral majority, triggering a military intervention and then a civil war whose outcome was anybody's guess. It seemed clear that wherever secular despots were willing to relax their grip, Islamist parties would step into the void.

But none of those things disproved the thesis of Mr Roy, who is now a professor at the European University Institute. One of his simplest but most compelling points was that for all its power as a mobilising slogan, Islam just does not provide the answers to the problems of governing a modern state. Quite recently the resurgence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the wake of the Arab spring seemed, once again, to challenge Mr Roy's analysis. But as of this week, he could be forgiven for saying: "I told you so."

In fact, he was saying more interesting things than that when I spoke to him today. These are some of the points he has made about the turmoil in Cairo. The Brotherhood regime in Egypt fell, of course, under the weight of its own incompetence (and in particular its failure to recruit technocrats) and its perceived nepotism. These sins fell short of big-time corruption, because the government did not last long enough to refine that art; but it still looked pretty bad. Nor, Mr Roy told me, could the Morsi government consolidate its power by "Islamising society"—one of the Brotherhood's stated goals—because Egyptian society was about as Islamised as it could be already.

So did that "Islamisation of society" represent a success at least for the Brotherhood's work as a semi-clandestine, semi-overt opposition movement over the past several decades? Not really, because Egypt's Islamised social world was not centrally co-ordinated, as the Brotherhood would like it to be, but highly diverse, with sub-cultures growing around particular charismatic preachers and theological trends. Egypt's Muslim majority might be devout, but it was also "modern" in the sense that more than one Islamic style was available and individuals could make their choice. Even the strict back-to-basics form of Islam known as Salafism was a kind of modern choice, in the sense that individuals, rather than groups, opt it into it.

Mr Roy is surely right to stress that Islam cannot provide detailed prescriptions for governing a modern state. As another scholarly Islam-watcher, Abdullahi Ahmed an-Naim of America's Emory University, has pointed out, Islam cannot even provide a clear basis for the centralised administration of family law, even though Islamic texts have a huge amount to say about family law. That is because the very idea of centralised administration did not exist at the time when the various schools of Muslim family law were evolved; in those days many matters were adjudicated at the level of the local community or the clan.

But the fact that a political project is ultimately impossible will not stop people shouting for it, dying for it, trying their best to implement it. An ideology can still play an important role in history, even if it has little to contribute to the challenges of complex societies. And there is a sense in which all political projects, conceived in the abstract, are bound to fail when they face contact with hard reality. After all, as a famously jaded French philosopher said, at some level everybody fails in life.

My impression was that the Economist (and at least some western nations) initially backed the rebels in Syria -- who were not, at that point, significantly Islamist.
.
The Islamists have since become a major power amongh the rebels. But it isn't really fair to object that someone should have foreseen that they could be expected to become so.
.
On the other hand, it might be interesting to have a discussion about when, at what point, should support for rebels be terminated because the Islamists have acquired "too much" influence. In short, how much is "too much?"

This is a very one-dimensional way of looking at the Syrian conflict, but not supporting the rebels could also produce an increase in radical Islamism.
.
Supposing The West does not support the rebels, what happens? The rebels have other supporters, and the war would drag on. During this time they would become more radical, and if they won, the resulting government would reflect this. If stalemate persists, the areas under their control could become havens for radical attacks on other countries. On the other hand, if Assad wins, it would only be because of help from his allies, Iran and Hezbollah, and their influence across the region would increase considerably.
.
The West could support Assad. This could end the war quickly, and we could hope for a more cooperative Assad in the future. This would be a return to old-fashioned foreign relations where a tyrant could be seen as ok by reasoning that “he may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he’s our son-of-a-bitch.” I doubt this is possible (right now he’s more like Iran’s son-of-a-bitch), but even if this could be achieved, such a cynical approach provides excellent propaganda for radical Islamic groups everywhere. (And any anti-western entity for that matter. And, do we want our governments doing this? Sorry to jump off the single dimension.) More generally, it would feed popular mistrust concerning the attitude of the West towards Arab countries, providing fertile ground for recruitment by radicals.
.
So, even if all you care about is radical Islamism, greater support for the more secular rebel groups is at least as good as the alternatives. When you add this to the other things that the West is hoping for in the region, including obviously, an end to the war as soon as possible, this is now looking like the only viable option.

Islam is incompetent in running economic policy
--unless you have a Saudi sized oil reserves and trillions of dollar in oil revenue.
(And in that case, any corrupt, pathological government will also do well.)

_____________________________

The Koran is not a 'recipe book' for how to run a nation.

Egypt demonstrates clearly:
The cure for Islamic Radicalism is to give them the power AND responsibility to run the government.

Islamists do not do well with public relations, building infrastructure, conducting global trade, diplomacy, education and health policy, maintaining law and order, making wise decisions, or being accountable.

Correct. Morsi was a simple minded twit. Unfortunately, he was also an engineer, like Jimmy Carter. That is what hurts most. Better to have had him stay and throughly disgrace himself before throwing him out. I guess the Army wanted to start making money again. It is the Egyptian Army, not a real fighting force.

I would assert that ANY ideology will ultimately fail to deliver satisfactory and sustainable government. This is true for Islam, Christianity, Zionism, Communism and Libertarianism. Perhaps more controversially, I would even speculate that a slavish devotion to democracy could be a vulnerable ideology of its own.

What will work is constantly adapting to changing circumstances. The problem is that what most people want is for their country to go back to a previous time in its history and stay there - which is generally not possible: Egypt cannot return to a simple world of ancient religion, and the EU will not get itself back to a time when growth came easily by generating endless rules and bureaucracy.

You seem to agree with the principle I expressed, but only apply it halfway. If your intent is to only criticize certain ideologies, you are in danger of promoting their opposites. That would make you an ideologue not unlike the Islamists.

In other words, retrograde Christianity and Zionism are as dangerous as their Islamic form. Look at Netanyahu and the "Jewish" state of Judea and Samaria he seems to want. Look at the America which denies evolution and builds arks for fun. Then there are the Libertarians. Ideology will only end when we purge it from ourselves first.

aLittleTimeToSpare, In my experience whenever someone talks about “the good old days” it’s because they remember the good, but forgot the bad. As a general rule, with obvious fits and starts, and some setbacks, the world gets better in most ways. Not in every way; just most ways. Too many rules and bureaucracy? A good argument can certainly be made for that view. But NO rules or bureaucracy? You would have to go back thousands of years before any societies developed to find something approaching that. I doubt anyone would consider that a “good” time to live.

Rules and bureaucracy have their purpose, and the more complex a society, the more they are needed. I believe this is why ideologies are ill suited to governing. Ideologies are generally static and fixed in time. Societies evolve, progress, and change. A governing philosophy must adapt to these changes or it fails. It appears that’s what is happening to political Islam. The interesting thing is that it only took a year in Egypt for the collapse to come. Most ideological governments last decades, like the Soviet Union, or even centuries, like the Holy Roman Empire. Perhaps this highlights the importance of the military. Whereas other ideological governments controlled the military, in Egypt it’s against with them. Something to think about. Thank You.

Thank you, but part of what I was trying to express corresponds well with your first paragraph. On the other hand your second paragraph seems to have almost no relation to what I wrote. Oh well, arguably my fault for using sarcasm and drifting too far off subject.

typingmonkey you can't ban ideology(Capitalism is also an ideology) and you can't ban religion (although the Communists thought you could) but you can separate religion from politics and state - one of the reasons for European ascendancy from the eighteenth century.

Islamists say that politics and religion are indivisible. Modern day humanists and political thinkers believe and have empirical proof that for any society to function fairly and democratically, religion and politics must be separated.
Unless the Arab/moslem world are some sort of sub species where the norms of human behaviour do not apply, then of course it will mean that Islamic government must always fail economically and socially . The Arab and Iranian world are still learning this rule that crippled the Ottoman Empire. The question is whether the world will be decimated from the Islamic bomb before they reach this conclusion.

Why has to be careful here. Sunni Islam cannot and never will be able to exercise political power in modern society. The reason is there is no clerical bureaucracy unlike with Shiite Iran or even in Christendom. The Caliph of the past were more political than religious leader, unlike the Ayatollahs in Iran of today. Everyone in Iran knows who has the political and religious authority. In Egypt, who has more religious authority, President Mursi or Ahmed el-Tayeb, the Grand Iman of Al Azhar Mosque, the closest thing Sunni Islam has to a Grand Ayatollahs? An Sunni Islam, any two bit cleric can issue a Fatwah

There may be a difference in the perception of their clergy between Sunnis and Shiahs.
But has that difference had a major impact upon the history of Islamic states?
Iran may be, as far as I know, the first case of a state structured along a line of clergy. Other Shiah states, such as Iraq (60% Shiah), had not.

It is interesting that the other two religious traditions from the Middle East, Christianity and Judaism, have a stronger secular civil society that determines political outcomes than Islam has been able to develop.

In both Egypt and Turkey, the recent demonstrations have been by a more secular, politically differentiated folks, against religious factors creeping into politics.

In Syria, the opposite seems to be true. It is the religious elements of the Sunni persuasion that are objecting to a non-Sunni (Asaad is from a sub-sect of Shiahs) ruling them.

If you remember, in Iraq, it was a Sunni man, Saddam Hussein, heading what used to be a secular party, The Baathists, was ruling over a Shiah majority country.

Muslims have been ruled by authoritarian figures for longer time, whether they are Sunni or Shiah.

But the Iraqi Shia were ruled by Sunni for so long, then the US came in. Its difficult to compare. The essential problem with Sunni Islamic States is they have Secular leaders trying to implement Sharia law. Its always been like that.

Secular tradition in Christianity / Judaism in the Middle East is due to the influence of the West, not because of them being more secular.

In my opinion its more been about both the Muslim Brotherhood and Edrogan abusing their power. Its dangerous for the West to see this as secular vs religious. Al Nour the official opposition in Parliament (the Salafist) are not backing the Muslim Brotherhood and have support the Army's plan. They have called for early elections. However, they have spoken out against the coup by the military. They have not joined in any of the demonstrations for and against Muris. In my opinion they are the only adults in the system.

People don't seem to understand that the Muslim brotherhood acts the way they do, not such much because of Islam, but because they feel like victims. They have been arrested, murdered during their long years in opposition. Its only natural that, once in power, they try to seize power to prevent that from happening again. The Islamic thing is secondary. Well given the response of the military I think their concerns are justified. They have arrested Mursi and most of the Senior leadership of the brotherhood.

If the Army wants to play politics, than play politics. Do what they do in Myanmar, and given themselves 30% of he seats in Parliament. Its enough to veto any legislation they don't like.

As Ergodan, the protest were over a park. I think it has to do with Ergodan's authoritarian tactics. Some secular groups might not like allowing headscarves in universities, restrictions to drinking hours. But let's be frank, Ergodan had to send his daughters to the US to study at Universities, because up until recently Turkish universities did not allow the headscarves. Muslim women have more freedom in the West to wear what they like than they do in Turkey !!. Ergodan won the Premiership, because he argued that the secularist have been arguing that this is the only Turkey can modernize or be more like the West, by secularizing. Ergodan was arguing how come Muslims in the West have more religious freedom than they do in Turkey?

I have lived In Indonesia during the Suharto period, and in many ways it was similar to Kemalist Turkey, although not nearly as extreme. Girls couldn't wear Muslim headscarves if they went to public school. Up until the end of the Suharto period it was like that with the Indonesian civil service. Its still like that with the Indonesian police. Indonesia female cops can't wear the Hijab, for safety reasons.

Bingo! You got it. Muslims are too frightened to criticize the Prophet and the Quran. Unless and until they are man enough to do that, they do not deserve any more than they have. By the way, to criticize is not the same as abuse. In most Muslim countries, the two terms are considered synonymous! Go figure.

Nice. When you consider that the real Israelis are displaced Europeans (by choice) you understand that there is a cultural thing among Arabs and other Easterners that needs to be overcome. Religion is hardly an issue. Except for Anglos still stuck in the days of the Crusades.

For the large part of Israel is secular, because it was founded by secular European Jews. But at the rate the Ultra Orthodox are reproducing, Israel will be like Saudi Arabia in 40 years. It has little to do with Islam.

As for Christianity, its largely because of the Protestant Reformation that the West is secular. And Christian Arabs in the last 70-80 years have been aping the West. Many of them went to Western missionary schools. Almost every Christian household in the Middle East now puts up a Christmas tree during Christmas. Outside of Lebanon and Syria, do pine trees grow in the Middle East.

People who have been Christian almost since the birth of Christ are now celebrating it with a German Pagan symbol. I don't blame Arab Muslims seeing Arab Christians as agents of the West, because they sure act that way.

The fear ordinary Muslims have in commenting on the tenets of their religion is justified. Social pressure is much higher than in other faiths, often, violence against 'dissenters' is a 'clear and present' danger.

Look at lively, good writers such as Tasleema Nazrine of Bangladesh and Arsi Ali (I am sorry if I have got her name wrong) of Holland. Both had to run away from their countries fearing for their lives.

Tasleema is, full time, under house arrest in New Delhi and the other lady, like Salman Rushdie, has to take extra-ordinary precautions before venturing outside of her house.

Muslims, the majority of them, feel that killing dissenters is justified, because they are 'enemies of God'. Unfortunately, there are passages in the Holy Book of Muslims that justify outright killings of dissenters and apostates.

I saw a video clip of an armed Taliban commander lining up unarmed Pakistani policemen, forty of them, captured earlier by the Taliban. The Taliban man declares, "These are enemies of Allah". In the next clip, muffled sounds of gun shots and then I saw forty bodies lying dead.

That is the nub of the thinking in Islam. Muslims, the majority of them, think God is on their side, they are all of 'Hezbo Allah'.

You may have read and thought more about the 'Muslim Brotherhood' party in Egypt. I thought that they were behind the cold-blooded murder of tourists at Luxor.

Religious parties are a threat to people of their own religion, first and foremost.

I think the pressure not to wear head scarves comes about because the pressure to wear head-scarves may eventually lead to banning girls from attending universities.

Which is the 'thin-end of the wedge'? Which aids freedom of choice?

Erdogan's daughters in US Universities, can wear head-scarves or even full chador / burkha in the FULL KNOWLEDGE that they CAN TAKE IT ALL OFF any time they want, without fear.

In Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore or even in India - whether the country has Muslim majority or not - once a Muslim girl or woman adopts head scarves, there is no further choice of taking it off, without her Muslim relations and friends boycotting her and her entire family.

REAL FREEDOM IS CHOICES - in the plural, meaning several choices.

It cannot be as Henry Ford's famous words: "You can have a car of any colour you want as long it is black".

‘Political Islam’ is mainly separated from main spiritual of real Islam. Concept of ‘Political Islam’ is wrong and it’s comparable with dictatorship. Democracy and Islam are confrontable. There are many contradiction between democracy and Islam. There is some friction between Islam and liberal democracy. Islamists say that politics and religion are indivisible. Modern day humanists and political thinkers believe and have empirical proof that for any society to function fairly and democratically, religion and politics must be separated. Because, Islam and democracy can not go together.

Islam is not a mere religion. The Quran provides the fundamental principles of Islam, and the authentic hadith provides explanation of the Quran to some extent. It is definitely a failure for Muslim scholars that they could not extract the essence of the Quran properly to lay the baseline of the political Islam. Definitely Islam provides all materials to build a sophisticated modern building, but the problem lies with who is doing the masonry!

Any political system that depends on "who" is inherently fragile and prone to wild and drastic fluctuation. It's much better to be "a nation of laws rather than of men" -- that is, a nation where laws are passed with broad consensus and implemented by people who respect those laws and operate within fairly narrow bounds.
For both personal security and economic success, a system of laws needs to be stable, fair, and widely respected, and not subject to change on the mere whim of any government official, not even the President. When you have a system that is dependent, as you put it, on "who is doing the masonry", you have a system of men rather than laws, in which political success is only possible to the extent that all the rulers are good men.
If religion tells us anything at all, it's that not all men are good, and that even good men may be tempted to do wrong. A successful political system has to contain checks and balances (i.e. laws) that constrain how much damage a bad man, whether immoral or incompetent, can do. Relying upon finding a "good king" is a recipe for disaster that has been tried more than enough times throughout history. Even if a good king is found, he will eventually grow old and die, and in the interim, there will always be lower-level officials, regional governors, and the like, out of his oversight or control, who in the absence of strong laws will govern badly.

You are quite wrong. To say that Islam is a guide is one thing, to say that it is a policy statement for all Muslims is inaccurate and untrue. There is no requirement, in the legal sense, for Muslims to use the Quran 'as-is' and the legal scholars are too timid to give an expansive rendition. Therefore, we keep getting thrown back to the pre-medieval concepts of the Arabs with a literal translation. As the Jews and the Christians have done, we should do also. Or we shall get our butt kicked for another 500 years.

D. Sherman, I am agree with your logical rendition, but Islam has four fundamental sources viz. the Quran, the Hadith, Ijma(consensus), and Qiyas(analogical reasoning) to extract framework for any worldly matter either be it Governance, economics or you can name it. By the by,"who is doing masonry" matters to every system, because there are fundamental principles in every system, and legislators do change and accommodate them according to the needs.

While we are living under the umbrella of an existing system, it is hardly possible to think about the credibility of another system. Just think when did democracy first emerge? What are the above all consequences of the Capitalism? What is the impact of Keynesian Economics? This system (Democracy) has seemingly got tremendous success at least to us due to media manufactured consent. Muslim don't have to stuck with the literal meaning of the Quran and the Hadiths, rather there are many ways to form a solid foundation of Islamic political system. Yes, there are draconian resistance against the formulation of a sound Islamic political system...

"Truly modern societies, for example, should be able to send even the prime ministers and presidents to jail without any fuss"

I agree, but that begs the question: How many G7 countries have ever sent their serving or former elected heads of government to jail? I recall Richard Nixon was never sent to jail after Watergate, so I can only think of Kakuei Tanaka of Japan and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy as examples.

Requesting the writer to go through the political history of Islam. The flaws defined here is the outcome of the failure of leaders of the concurrent Islamic world. There is no space for such a word like political Islam, rather the word ISLAM encapsulate all the theory of life, humanity, society, and politics (and science as well!). The failure did not arise from the theory of Islam, but its a result of failure in execution of the Islamic principles. Any problem can get an absolute solution from the Quran and relevant Hadiths.

Ah yes , but it is interpretation and implementation that is the tricky part. And who gets to do that. Islam cannot be a worldly power and a metaphysical/ethical way of life. This goes for all religions.

Once religion wields political power (commands),it no longer serves its primary function (if you are a believer), that is to relate God to man & vice versa. Noone (even the holiest of holy men) has ever squared that circle or ever will.

I really appreciate your concern. Islam is neither a metaphysical nor a ethical (which varies man to man) matter only. Rather it encapsulate more than that what I have stated earlier. I accept your claim that whenever religion came to implement political power, it became distracted from its basics. Notwithstanding that, it made itself questioning. But dude, Islam can square more than a circle, if a leader can implement it in a PROPER way. I refer the golden history of "Hazrat MOhammad (Sm)'s", ruling the Arab world and all his Sahabi (follower) like "Hazrat Umar (R:)".

I don't mean to be rude but why should I take your word for what Islam is or isn't when other people have different definitions of what Islam is?

Seems like it varies from man to man. Do you have some secret channel of communication with Allah and did you live in the 'Golden Age'. Obviously not. I will follow my own conscience and you yours. Unless you have a problem with that.

All religions are the evolutionary remnants from the evolving science on how to make a large group of people survive well.

As science becomes a religion it too has branching off with its followers of different streams of thought becoming ideologues guessing the best way to do something. Ideologies are hypotheses in a stage of processing particular plans for the improvement of its people survival.

All hypotheses are naturally divergent because everything can only be tested by a competition which allows the winner to go to the next stage of development simply by going into the next divergence.

So far all religious and political systems on planet Earth have failed to deliver economic stability long term for most recipients. This could be a Darwinian thing simply because change in environment is a constant therefore no rigid system of governance can remain for long without breaking. Possibly only a fluid like system can absorb change over long periods and still provide fairly well for its beneficiaries.

Probably the most fluid hypothesis currently available is the Primary Fundamental Right which theoretically grants all people the right of ownership of their own body. In all western democracies all citizens are actually vassals of the state who are made to contribute to their own indenture via debt bondage and compulsory taxation.

Excerpt from 'What is the Primary Fundamental Right?'.
"Probably only by employing the ever expanding Super Imperialism model can the US fiat currency remain relatively stable to pay for all the goods it consumes on credit including the War on Drugs, the War on Terror and now the War on Islam. With Islam the USA is fighting the precepts of a successful 1400 year old religion that probably only works well in conditions of relative poverty and close communal conformity."http://www.primaryfundamentalright.org/index.php?pageName=pfrWhatIs

The problem is that every civilization, thinks that it is unique, and the bulk of the people at any particular time period all think that what they are doing/facing has not existed before except for them. Hence the comments about Islam not having any answers for the "modern world".

Just consider, modern technology apart, there is very little that is happening in human history today, that has not happened in the past. In terms of administration, challenges and sophisticated societies, managing the Assyrian, Egyptian, Roman, Persian, Chinese, Aztec, Inca, or the Islamic empires was very similar to the issues being faced the world over today. For those who would disagree, consider this, in the 8th century a trader in Marrakesh on the Atlantic could travel to Shanghai with a piece of paper from his bankers and that would be honored. Or even earlier, no one quite knows how what the engineering that made the pyramids possible, how was it possible to move the huge blocks of stone which would be impossible today. These are not things that would have been possible without a sophisticated system/structures being in place. People by and large have no idea of the amount of sophisticated structures and institutions built by societies in the past, the amount of scientific learning etc. that they had, and then the amount of knowledge lost when those civilizations then fell.

In the above context, if Islam could provide a basic framework for running huge empires in the past there is no reason why it cannot do so again. The basic problem is not Islam, but one of historic cycles, which all civilizations go through. The essential premise for the rise of nations/societies is equity, i.e. the willingness of the elites of that society to base their society on merit. At this moment in time the elites (and those who strive to replace them) in the Islamic world are parasitical i.e. more intent on what they can squeeze out for themselves and their families, than in what they can build for their people. That is the same position the West was in 400 years ago.

The equity that I refer to above is the basic premise and appeal of Islam for the streets of the Islamic world. They remember the justice, social justice, and equity they had and feel by going to Islamic principles (of egalitarianism, social justice, and a merit based society) they can get that again. It is this yearning that the elites of the Islamic world and the so called Islamist have failed to understand and work towards. That is the failing of the people involved and not one of what Islam preaches.

"Teacup", can I kindly have your permission to quote some of your very interesting views if you do not mind? I would be very greatful as I am preparing a conference paper uder the theme of "Transformation of Muslim World in the 21st Century". You may email me blak_ini@yahoo.com Thank you.

Empires existed BEFORE Islam and provided a degree of peace and prosperity, perhaps, without reference to anything sacred or theological.

The Jews, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Hindus (the Mauryan and Gupta Empires were well run over three or four centuries ), Romans and the British ran empires which were as good as the Islamic period you have in mind.

Therefore, almost every community in the world has some reasons to have a MILLENNIAL ASPIRATION.

I am not sure that such aspirations can be reached in the way of the Wahabis, Salafists and the Al-Queada.

I see many educated Muslims prefer to live in the West, rather than in the Muslim majority countries they were born or raised in.

It makes me wonder what they want, when some of them express their millennial aspirations based on Islam, while living in Western countries.

In their shoes and having their aspirations, I would stay in my 'Muslim land' and work to improve it to such a high degree that I or my grand-children could bring back that golden period of LIFE AS DICTATED BY ALLAH.

But first, I would want to ask myself the question: "Given human nature, with all of its weaknesses and some strengths, can general teachings of ethics, worship and 'proper' beliefs, SOLVE THE PROBLEMS AND ISSUES OF CHANGING TIMES?

The way I answer that question makes it impossible for me to have any millennial aspirations, never mind, in which religious tradition I was raised in.

"student of history, I accidently asked "teacup" another commentor for your comments. My apologises, so can I kindly have your permission to quote some of your very interesting views if you do not mind? I would be very greatful as I am preparing a conference paper under the theme of "Transformation of Muslim World in the 21st Century". You may email me blak_ini@yahoo.com Thank you

Indica, you are absolutely correct in your comment about many highly educated Muslims living in the west and yet expressing their millennial aspirations based on Islam (something hard to explain without knowledge of Islamic history and development of the Islamic ethos).
My feeling on this is that their residency in the West is in large part due to the fact that living in the West is easier or perhaps safer than the struggle they would have to face to reform their societies/countries. Consider, political space in most Islamic countries is dominated either by dictators (recent winds of changes apart) and/or by religious fanatics, both of whom were until fairly recently supported to the hilt by the West. The educated Muslims living in the West have (relative to their societies) liberal pluralistic values, making them dangerous to the dictators and religious hardliners alike, whose response to any efforts by these people to have change in their countries would be life threatening violence.
The irony is that it is precisely this educated Muslim populace living in the West that has the grounding and knowledge to be able to synthesize the realities of the modern world with Islamic teachings and offer the Islamic world a framework that it can move forward with. However, given the current parasitical mindset of the elites of the Islamic world, that framework is the last thing that those elites want, since not only would mean giving up their unbridled power, but also mean that society would focus on bread and butter issues to move forward with, instead of being told that all their ills are due to their sins and can all be resolved through greater piety.

"One of his simplest but most compelling points was that for all its power as a mobilising slogan, Islam just does not provide the answers to the problems of governing a modern state. "

And a raggedy-ass army like that of Egypt does?

The military had sixty years, from 1952 to 2011, to build a stable, prosperous and democratic Egypt. What is its track-record in that regard?

The editorial remarks of many commentators suggest that in order to be "modern" Egypt must become California. It must become a secular, "progressive" entity in which communal relationships based on mosque and family can be happily dissolved.

The "bargain" offered by western pundits is the same offered to generations. You, the Lesser Breeds Without the Law, can become modern -- at least as understood on the UWS or in Marin County -- but you have to give up your history and cultural uniqueness.

One can feel pity for the Egyptians. Most of them are Muslim, not UCC or Unitarian. Most of them are welded to their families in a way that seems rather odd to Americans (who, we know, are the effective cultural arbiters of mankind.)

At the same time, it seems almost impossible to have a modern techno-state with up-to-date smart phones unless one abandons the concept of a holistic culture based on shared religious values.

Thus, culture, tradition and faith must yield.

(Unless, of course, one lives in Israel. There a religious state survives by pandering to the Orthodox and oppressing the Muslims.)

I have not a doubt in the world that a secular future is the only practical outcome for the whole Middle East. Such an outlook alone allows individual dissent, intellectual innovation and, by removing religion as a point of division, a stable polity. There is so much to be gained!

And, so much to lose -- which is why we may be unsympathetic toward political Islam yet not despise it. The losses approach the gains.

What we seem to want for Egyptians is that they be like the West in their approach to women, sexuality, religion (i.e. free of it), social cohesiveness and the family. The young, of all continents, especially seems to want this and they have every right.

It would be fun to "come back" a hundred years hence and see the world as it will be then. I suspect it will be a technological marvel, rooted politically in some sort of participatory democracy and largely secular. Delaware will look just like the Delta and Aswan will resemble Arkansas. It will be very difficult to know where you are since every place will be the same place -- just with different weather.

The young will have whatever is the smart-phone technology of that era and feel at home anyplace they go because, once again, "anyplace" is always the same place.

As for the regional variations, traditions, cultures, beliefs . . . the things that give piquancy to much of life . . . these will have vanished along with history. When we have everything figure out, why should we have to put up with competing visions of existence?

Mr. Roy may be justified in saying "I told you so," but frankly, so are a lot of Muslim thinkers who have been saying for years that the secularists refuse to give political Islam a fair chance.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I don't think the CIA conspired against Morsi -- Frankly, I think the CIA could be that effective on the ground. I'm also not the biggest fan of political Islam -- I believe in strict separation of church and state, not only to prevent various religious views from tampering with the government but to prevent the government from tampering with religions.

However, I also believe in democracy, not mob rule. Of course Morsi was incompetent. ANYONE who took over from Mubarak was going to be incompetent at first. That is one of the main problems with dictatorships -- even when they're benevolent, they starve all opposition parties of practical experience in government, and governing is hard. When they're brutal and corrupt like Mubarak, they leave an enormous mess behind for their rookie replacements to unravel. That sort of thing takes time. If the Egyptians get into the habit of violently overthrowing everyone who doesn't make their country thrive after two years, they're in for rocky times ahead.

In the meantime, the west shouldn't crow about this coup, nor about Turkey's riots. They're good for nobody. If you don't like the Islamists, vote them out. If the Muslim Brotherhood had been given a full term, the real world experience may have softened their views on what a modern Muslim state looked like. Or they might have proven to the world -- even to the Muslim world -- that radical Islam is a lousy way to govern. This coup will only further radicalize Islamists, and it does the democratic process no favors.

Morsi first act as president was to pardon and release Hundreds of convicted terrorists. These terrorists have taken refuge in the Sinai and killed: civilian Egyptians, army, police and attacked Israel to provoke war.
Morsi have ordered the army and police not to investigate or arrest any Jihadist or Hamas terrorists.
Morsi have used Hamas armed militia to intimidate, terrorize and murder his opposition.
The above are examples as why Morsi need to stand trial for High Treason

Fair enough, and ultimately it's up to the Egyptian people, obviously. All the same, if you'll forgive the suggestion, maybe the roadmap forward should include some serious checks to government power, and maybe an easy impeachment process. Government change by military fiat is a dangerous precedent to set.

The idea of fundamental rights, like speech and religion, is that you cannot vote them away. You erroneously place democracy on a pedestal far above basic human liberties. If a majority of Americans wanted to establish Christianity as a state religion, would it be right? Of course not. And thus it would be blocked, because that's what a free society does. It prevents the majority from oppressing individuals.

If a majority of Egyptians voted for an Islamic government from now until eternity, it still wouldn't make such a government legitimate or moral, at least for anyone that believes in the rights of man.

To me concept of political Islam is brain child of so called intellectuals who probably have some vested interests. With intervals such theories keep on propping in the media just to distract the attention of masses from core issues. In order to understand the philosophy how Islam will emerge on globe one has to study very deeply the prophecies made by the prophet of Islam Muhammad (saw). How Islam is likely to revive in times to come has very amicably been explained by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Those interested can always visit alislam dot org for further details. However just to give an appetiser some details are appended below.
In 2005, President Bush warned. “These Al Qaida terrorists are driven by a radical and perverted vision of Islam that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women and children in the pursuit of political power. They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call caliphate … where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology. This caliphate would be a totalitarian Islamic empire encompassing all current and former Muslim lands”.Mr. Bush was not alone in raising the specter of the caliphate. After the recent unrest and demand for freedom and justice in the Arab lands, many public figures in academia and think tanks have expressed similar alarmist views, while some in the media have circulated wild caliphate conspiracy theories.On the other end of the spectrum, the collective Muslim soul yearns for a global caliphate, which is cherished as a memory of past glories and timeless ideals. In recent years, interest among Muslims in international unity and the caliphate has grown. Popular Islamic movements identify a lack of spirituality and decline in personal religious observance as the root cause of the Muslim world’s problems, and claim that the caliphate cannot be successfully revived until these deficiencies are addressed. Osama bin Laden called the 9/11 attacks “a great step towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the righteous caliphate.” A number of fundamentalist political parties called for the restoration of the caliphate by uniting Muslim nations, either through peaceful political uprising or through force. Two influential and radical pan-Islamic groups, the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Muslim Brotherhood, seek to restore the caliphate, but fail to differentiate between a militant Islamic state and the spirituality of the rightly-guided khilafat. Some see the ineffectual Organization of the Islamic Conference, an international organization with 57 Muslim member states, as a precursor to the caliphate. Other scholars, like Tarek Masoud of Harvard Kennedy School, take a milder view envisioning the caliphate somewhat like the European Union for Muslims.Clearly, at the core of the divergent ideas of restoration of the caliphate lies a minimal precondition of the political unity of the Muslim ummah. But that seems to be inconceivable in the present climate. In recent memory, Muslim countries have not been a picture of unity and harmony: the world has been a witness to the Black September of Jordan (1970), the failure of the Pan Arabic movement and of the United Arab Republic (1971), division of Pakistan (1971), the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), the Darfur conflict (2003-2008), and the decision of the southern Sudan to secede from the north (2011).
The Ahmadiyya Khilafat
Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam AhmadAS, the Messiah and Mahdi, likened khilafat to the second manifestation of God’s power – the advent of prophets being the first manifestation. He drew a parallel and proffered the archetypical Khilafat of Hadhrat Abu Bakr as the second manifestation. He quoted the Quranic verse 24:56 and made a prophetic statement: “The second manifestation cannot come till I go. But when I go, God will send a second manifestation for you which will remain with you forever.” This second manifestation unequivocally refers to the Ahmadiyya Khilafat.After the death of Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam AhmadAS, the transitions to Khalifas have taken place with grace and harmony. This was one of the most significant events in the history of Islam whose full impact is yet to be seen.The Ahmadiyya Khilafat categorically rejects militancy in every form and wages an intellectual jihad of the pen. When faced with bitter persecution, it practices patience and perseverance. When subjected to invidious intolerance, it preaches peace and tolerance. It champions the cause of the dispossessed and works towards uplifting the downtrodden.The Ahmadiyya Khilafat has conquered no land and possesses no earthly dominion, but it wields its influence over the hearts and minds of millions by winning over one man and one woman at a time. It is a force for good in the world, and exemplifies, once again, an institution grounded in the precepts of prophethood. So concept of Political Islam actually is something gone idea without any worth.

It's true that Islam lacks the answers for the challenges of administering a modern state, but so does any religion. Transition from autocracy is incredibly challenging, and plenty of Christian nations failed at first, including France, Germany, Russia, most of Latin America. Even Britain reverted to (limited) monarchy after its 'Glorious Revolution'.
America's revolution may seem an exception, but it was really more of an evolution as far as political institutions go, and she came out of it with an experienced governing class, accustomed to the workings of democracy, and fully prepared for their responsibilities.

Would agree with most of what you say - except about the US. The US is more of a plutocracy and always has been to some degree. The framers of the constitution. They assumed slavery would always be with us, and those people certainly couldnt vote, women couldnt vote, the landless couldnt vote, in fact only white males could.

The US is still a country that serves the interest of the rich, it still has its aristocracy - look the names in teh congress or HoR, they have been there for generations.

Would agree with most of what you say - except about the US. The US is more of a plutocracy and always has been to some degree. The framers of the constitution. They assumed slavery would always be with us, and those people certainly couldnt vote, women couldnt vote, the landless couldnt vote, in fact only white males could.

The US is still a country that serves the interest of the rich, it still has its aristocracy - look the names in teh congress or HoR, they have been there for generations.

No particular problem with the point you are making, but aren’t you confusing The Glorious Revolution with The English Civil War? It is the latter with resulted in an interruption in monarchical rule up until The Restoration when Charles II became king.
.
The Glorious Revolution, however, came later when James II was ousted, and William III and Mary II jointly ascended to the throne shortly afterwards. There was thereby little interruption to rule by royalty at that time, although I’m sure these events are of great relevance to the ‘transition from autocracy’.

Two revelations have come to us who have been watching the crisis unfold in Egypt. The first is not so much an epiphany as it is a confirmation of our strongly held suspicion that Islam and Islamist political philosophy are inherently incompatible with modern democracy. Second, it has become very clear that the one uniting sentiment that binds both pro- and anti-Morsi camps is a hatred for the United States; both sides accuse the other of being under the influence of the Great Satan that has destroyed the otherwise wonderful world of harmony and prosperity the Egyptian people would have supposedly built for themselves. It matters not to them that we have been effectively bankrolling their economy to keep them from mass starvation for decades, nor that we have taken more recent steps to give them a chance at a democratic state. Even as our President had foolishly backed the arrival of an elected Islamist government, anti-American sentiment has only flowered further in their fertile soil of illiteracy, irresponsibility and incompetence. Bush supporters were correct in pointing out that Muslims hate us because we are free, but they were only half right. They hate us also because we are rich and advanced as a civilization, and because we are a convenient target. Apologizing for our 'sins' while paying for their sustenance and attempting to show them the way forward has been met with only more bitter resentment. It is high time that we pull the plug on foreign aid and stop sending our hard-earned treasure to those who don't much like us. It has not bought us anything, least of all security for ourselves or for our allies.

You really do have cheek and chutzpa. At the time when Egypt was already a great civilisation your ancestors were still in caves. At any rate the fact that civilisations rise and decline as countries like Egypt and Greece demonstrate should give you cause to reflect. Like all civilisations the USA will soon be on the decline and probably much sooner than you think. That in fact is well on it's way. There is no reason for boastful pride here. There might be things wrong with Egypt, but so also with the US. If you are dissatisfied with what your country is doing in Egypt then speak to your representatives in your government instead of passing gratuitous insults at Egypt.

Lionheart - I sympathize with your frustration about paying large amounts of money to countries where the populace is largely anti-American, Egypt just being one example of many. And right now for sure the majority of all Muslims worldwide hates the US.
But you may want to consider that Muslim enmity to the US is by no means a constant. Many times in the recent past conservative Muslims were allies - remember the Rambo sequel playing in Afghanistan? It is wrong that Muslims just hate the US for being free and rich. They do, however hate to see weapons made in USA and financed by the US taxpayer killing ten-year-old "terrorists" in Gaza. US politicians have made a political decision that the enmity of the Arab world is less important than the enmity of AIPAC. This decision could be rectified, in theory at least, but it probably won't.

Huh! There is political riot almost every decade against minority muslims in India. It is more a majoritarianism than democracy. The hardliner Hindus are dying to elect Modi, a truly fascist minister who was responsible for killings more than two thousand innocent muslims...a lot of women were raped by organized mobs whom Modi protected.

In conclusion, all hardliners flourish under the protection of state government whether be it Afganistan's taliban, India's modi or German nazis.